The complainant Pawan Kumar has filed this case against Sri Suman Kr. Verma, B.M., UCO Bank Bochaha, Muzaffarpur for realization of Rs. 85,000/- as compensation, Rs. 20,000/- for economical and mental harassment and RS. 5000/- as litigation cost total Rs. 1,10,000/-. He has further prayed to direct the o.p to return the policy bond of the complainant.
The, brief, facts of the case is that complainant had applied for loan in the personal department for running Kiranashop in Prime Minister Planning. It has been further mentioned that the personal department accepted the loan and requested to o.p to grant RS. 85,000/- in favour of the complainant. It has been further alleged that in the month of February 2005, the o.p send amount on Rs. 85,000/- in the C.C. Limited Account No. 057605000000021 of the complainant after taking Matric Certificate in original and L.I.C policy bond. The further allegation is that complainant opened the Kirana shop and started to maintain his family and to pay loan amount. The further case is that the complainant didn’t pay the whole of the loan amount so o.p brought the case in the Lokadalat and matter was settled on 30-11-2012 in the Lokadalat for Rs. 40,000/-. It was also settled that after depositing the amount, the o.p assured to settle the loan amount. The further case is that the complainant deposited Rs. 40,000/- and on 17-04-2013 o.p issued no objection certificate and returned the document for land and certificate of matric in original but didn’t return policy bond on LIC till today. The further allegation is that the complainant asked reply from o.p in the Information Act but he didn’t reply. Thereafter the complainant asked the reply from LIC office in Information Act and LIC office answered that as per his record policy No.-53263061 is in agreement between Pawan Kumar (Life assured) and UCO Bank of Muzaffarpur. The further case is that the complainant requested the o.p to return his bond but the o.p didn’t return the same, so the complainant sent a legal notice on 04-07-2013 but o.p didn’t answer the same.
The complainant has filed the following documents with the complaint petition - photocopy of legal notice annexure-1-, photocopy of of application dated 02-05-2013 filed in information Act 2005 reply by B.M to the Pawan Kumar annexure-2-, photocopy of ‘No dues certificate’ by UCO Bank - annexure-3.
On issuance of summon, o.p. appeared on 13-11-2013 but didn’t file w.s. so he has been debarred from filing w.s. on 04-01-2019.
The complainant has filed Carbon copy of letter dated 07-08-2013 sent by Branch Manager, to Subodh Kumar Ray advocate responsible for legal notice, no dues certificate in original issued by UCO Bank, letter no- 489 dated 19-08-2018 issued by Branch Manager LIC of India Muzaffapur Branch to the Pawan Kr. And original passbook of account C.C account No. 221 in the name of Pawan Kumar no other evidence has been adduced on behalf of complainant.
The main question for determination is as to whether there is no any deficiency on the part of o.p.
O.P. has not filed any w.s. during trial, so burden of proof lies on complainant. The complainant has filed the carbon copy of letter no- Vividh/08/13-14 dated 07-08-2013 sent by Manager UCO Bank to Sri Subhodh Kumar Rai in responce of his notice dated zero 2013. In the above letter the manager has mentioned that the Sri Pawan Kr., had not mentioned about any LIC policy in his loan account. It has been further mentioned that all the documents of his loan account was brought in his presence and the same was handedover to him. The complainant has also filed ‘No dues certificate granted by UCO bank Bochaha. The complainant has also filed original copy of letter dated 19-08-2018 sent by Senior Manager LIC of India Muzaffarpur Branch to Pawan Kr. On perusal of the same it transpires that reassignment process was going on and LIC of India issued a form of nomination for Ex. It was also requested from Pawan Kr by the Senior Manager, LIC of India to send the policy document alongwith a notice of nomination for registration.
The learned lawyer for the complainant has submitted that it has been mentioned in the above letter, that policy bond is in the custody of Bank. On perusal of letter it transpires that the averments regarding custody of policy bond is in handwriting. There is no signature of any one on the above averment. The complainant has not adduced any evidence regarding filing of policy bond in the bank. He has not produced any evidence to show that the policy bond is in custody of o.p bank. He has also not examined any person to prove the handwriting of the person who mentioned that policy bond is in custody of bank. So, we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to establish that policy bond is in custody of o.p. The complainant has himself produced the letter of UCO bank and the same discloses that all the documents were handed over to him.
In the circumstances, we find that there is no deficiency in service on part of o.p.
Accordingly, this complaint petition is dismissed.
